memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Transporter room
DS9 transporter room Have we seen a DS9 transporter room? I can't remember ever getting a glimpse of it, although according to transporter room, it does (the article simply says DS9 has one but that ops has a transporter as well, citing DS9 as a general reference). Sloan 19:00, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I never realized this before, but we haven't seen one at all. When people come aboard, they either beam directly to somewhere or come through an airlock. I suppose the airlock area is the DS9 equivalent of a transporter room. --Vedek Dukat ''Talk'' | ''Duty Roster'' 08:37, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) :In the episode where the security system goes off on DS9, Dukat beams in. I think he used a transporter pad in Ops. :In the episode their is a brief scene where they transport the surviving Jem'Hdar and Weyoun in. Sisko tells the transport operator some procedure that beams the soldiers in without their weapons. Surrounding the transport pad were several secruity officers with weapons aimed at the Jem'Hdar. :There was an episode poss. season 4, where in the ward room, Sisko orders someone taken to the nearest transporter room. Only reference I can think of, they've never been seen apart from the pad in ops. Jakynes 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :: Of course I was referring to transporter rooms, not pads, of which the cargo transporter would be included under general DS9 transporters. Jakynes 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Corrections - in , Sisko transports the Jem'Hadar and Weyoun aboard the Defiant, not DS9. In , Dukat uses the transporter system on his ship to beam in just in front of the turbolift in Ops. I'm actually surprised that there isn't a public transporter room somewhere connected to the Promenade. I guess there's really no need for it since passengers could simply call their docked ships and transport directly there. I also remember the reference where Sisko orders someone be taken to a transporter room. Maybe this transporter is somewhere near the Promenade. There are also some cargo transporters in the various docking bays. Ezri Dax from the mirror universe in the episode used a multi-dimensional transporter device on a transporter pad in one of the cargo bays to beam a Klingon cloaking device that Quark and Rom stole to the mirror universe. In addition, since the station was designed as an ore processing facility, and it was built in orbit of Bajor, it probably didn't make sense to shuttle the ore from the surface to the station. I would expect some large cargo transporters to be located in the ore processing center as well. Besides, the transporter rooms even on Federation ships were really just reception areas. They really weren't needed other than to house the equipment. Since site-to-site transportation technology was basically perfected in the 24th century, it almost made the transporter room obsolete (as opposed to Kirk's era when he was concerned about beaming inside a wall in the episode ). -Davisn456 01:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC) :The main DS9 transporter seen was indeed in Ops. The reason for the general citation to the series as a whole is, I suppose, because it would be laborious to list the number of times it was used. Just off the top of my head, I know it was prominently featured in several of the mirror universe episodes, most obviously, perhaps, and , both of which begin our contact with the MU using the Ops transporter. An early use, and really the earliest I can think of, is from late season 1. : Whether it could be called a "room" or not is a matter of debate, as it was little more than a corner of the set, and a possible redress of the turbolift set. Plus, we must remember that DS9 wasn't a Federation vessel, but a Cardassian one. Perhaps the Ops transporter is a perfectly normal example of a Cardassian "transporter room". Certainly, it's a hell of a lot more efficient than a Federation transporter room. :Another point often forgotten about DS9 was that it wasn't actually in orbit of Bajor, and thus ostensibly out of transporter range. It probably wasn't even as high-powered as a standard starship transporter room, because it anticipated short-range transportation only. CzechOut ☎ | 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) ::: You appear to be forgetting the use in , where O'Brien kicked the console to enable Odo to beam from the Cardassian vessel docked at the station. Jakynes 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC) :::: Tahna Los was beamed to the Ops pad in the teaser for . As for the rest of the station, original blueprints called for a Transporter pad to be on the Promenade at one end of the outer wall, but it was dropped. Perhaps transporters were "dumbed down" on the station in hopes of making the tech level lower...I always wondered re: site-to-site beaming on the station--Vash and Co. are not simply beamed out when trapped behind a stuck Runabout hatch in , or the same for those stuck in the Airlock in . Bones4ever 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC) ::Deep Space 9 was, in fact, in orbit of Bajor. In , Major Kira and Chief O'Brien had to move the station with its reaction control thrusters to a position near the wormhole. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC) DS9 transporter room pic Can we have a picture of the DS9 transporter room? I don't think I've ever seen it. :I don't think either - I've seen at least half of DS9, and never seen it. It's unlikely they made a "ds9 transporter room set" and used it only once upon a time. :However, i heard something like "escort our guest to the nearest transporter room" (can't remember the episode, sorry), this implies ds9 have at least 2 of them. --Rami 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC) :: They had a transporter pad in ops which was used on several occasions, umm, , , and come to mind. --Alan del Beccio 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) :::In , there's a reference to Transporter Room 5, so DS9 has at least 5 (huh,I'm smart,not?). Kennelly 13:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC) The use of transporter rooms... Wouldn't they be considered kind of useless? If you can get beamed to where you want from where you are, then what's the point of going to the transporter room? I mean, I've seen episodes where they can transport someone from a room of a starship to another room or to some other destination without having to go to the transporter room itself. Also, they show it where someone is on an away mission, and they request to be beamed directly to the bridge or sickbay. What's the deal? What do you think? --User:TrekDudeToTheMax 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC) :Safety might be a possibility. Standing on the actual pad may be safer for targeting scanners and such than not being on the pad. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) ::Also, transporter rooms might have greater range than independent transporter beams or whatever. It might also be safer, as Cobra said; it may also be safer to transport large groups of people using the transporter room. For example, in , five members of the Enterprise crew go to the transporter room to beam over to the Scimitar. Later in the movie, though, Picard beams over to the Scimitar by himself from the bridge. Of course, he was pressed for time: maybe independent beams are only to be used in case of emergency, which would kind of lend credence to the possibility that transporter rooms are safer. --From Andoria with Love 11:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) :::Hmm, this is a good question. I don't know if i agree with the idea that safety is the issue since it would suggest that there are two seperate transporting units. even if there were, a buffer would still be used; so i don't think safety would be the issue. Power requirements, maybe? It is possible to speculate that it requires more power to transport something/someone from oneplace to another w/o having to be in the room, since that would mean that it would be a straight integration into the buffer and then into the matter/energy stream instead of M/E stream to buffer to M/E stream to destination to reintagration. mind you this is just speculation and while i don't agree with the safety aspect of the arguement, i will not discount it as a plausible theory. – Farfallen 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Perhaps it has more to do with diplomacy and procedures. Certainly if you're greeting guests, like ambassadors, admirals or other dignitaries, you need a formal place in which to receive them and welcome them aboard, rather than just having them materialize in a random corner somewhere. Likewise, when an away team is assigned, I suppose you'd want a place for the team to assemble before embarking on the mission, rather than just transporting the members willy-nilly from wherever they happen to be on the ship. Same with the reverse. If not an emergency, where someone must be transported directly to sickbay, there's got to be a place to put the people you beam back up. Otherwise, you'd have to beam each member of the team to various places on the ship when you retrieve them. - Bridge 00:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :::::I would imagine that it's some combination of the above. I'm sure the writers questioned some of this too, that's why in Star Trek: Voyager, the transporter room set was rarely used, especially after Season 2. In fact, even when it would have made sense for Janeway to call to the transporter room and have the technician beam someone to sickbay or somewhere else, she would often just give the order to Tuvok at tactical or someone else on the bridge. If you aren't previously aware of this peculiarity aboard Voyager it might catch you off-guard. --Topher 08:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::I believe I read on the Star Trek The Next Generation Technical Manual that site-to-site transport is not used because it consumes double the amount of energy. Also, the transporter systems need time after a transport to reset and be available for use again, so when you do a site-to-site transport, you are actually taking two "spots" on the tranporter platform out of comission for a while (one for the beam-in you from where you are and another for the beam-out you where you wanna go). For this reason, site-to-site transports are used only in emergencies, and when no further need of the transporter system is expected. Quase 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC) :::::This was probably true at the time of the Next Gen Tech Manual's writing, but it has evolved since then. Voyager seems to be the one series to push the site-to-site transport issue to its breaking point by using it quite often. This points to a bit of irony here since they were supposed to be conserving energy with replicator rations and the like. Either transporter technology had overcome the obstacle, or this is a serious flaw in the writing of the series. -- Topher 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::The fact that the set is not seen does not mean it is not being used. Voyager, for having a smaller crew, might not have a dedicated transporter chief, so that's why Janeway gives the command, usually to Harry, and many times we see his reply as "Got him/her/them!" or some technobabble as in "Boosting the confinement beam... Got him/her/them!". This does not mean however that the subjects were in a point-to-point transport, it just means that the transporter room is being controled from the bridge. - Quase 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::Just to add a li'l spice to this Voyager conversation, I point you in the direction of in which an apparent site-to-site transport of about 150 Klingons takes place simultaneously with only the comment from Harry that "we usually don't like to do that for safety reasons, but in a pinch, we can expand the buffer capacity." It's kinda clear to me this practically means "we writers will do whatever the hell we want to with the transporters, as the situation arises". Another way of putting it is that, while there must be some limit to site-to-site transporting, it's never made clear in the series. What's more, it's not the same as we've seen in other series/films where transporter rooms had to go through definite "cycles", such that you really wouldn't have been able to have evacuated a whole ship like that. It's a long damn way from the 1701, where intracraft beaming was pushing the limits of the technology. Hell, in "Prophecy", B'Elanna even beams to her quarters on what's essentially a whim. So much for the logic of "replicator rations". CzechOut ☎ | 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::Just to clear the confusion, I have two points to make: there is a BIG difference between Transport and Replicate. The main issue with the "replication rations" (besides being the most stupid writing snafu I have ever seen) is not that is consumes energy. The problem is the raw material used to assemble foodstuffs. That is what is limiting replicator capability on Voyager. When you are creating a burrito for instance, where does the meat come from? Where does the tasty cheese come from (besides that killer cheese Neelix made once)? They have to be assembled from scratch from matter that is stored in the ship. When you are beaming someone, you are obliged to use the same atoms the person was made from in the first place, so no new matter is necessary. Hence, no waste (besides the energy use). Second point: the TNG addresses emergency evacuations using the transporters. I can't remember exactly, but if memory serves right, during emergency evacuations (to and from the ship), a second set of buffers is deactivated for each chamber. Usually these serve as backup, in case the primary ones fail, but during emergency, they can be turned off. Also, most ships have cargo transporters, that usually are not used for people (either for safety, or because who would like to beam into the cargo bay?), but they too can be used to snatch a whole bunch of people at once. - Quase 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC) :::::::Fair enough but the raw material must be pretty ubiquitous or there's no point to the exercise. If the raw mats aren't cheap then you wouldn't be using replicators in every room of every starship to make a cup of coffee every morning. The limiting factor has to be energy. Voyager didn't know where their next bit of dilithium was coming from, so they were ostensibly trying to budget their use of energy, not matter. Well, I say they were trying to limit it, but what I mean is, they were trying to limit it in those episodes where they cared about limiting it. When they needed to forget it, they did — so that Harry could replicate some flowers for a holodeck character or somethin' :) CzechOut ☎ | 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, ignoring th fact, like I said, that this was the most stupid thing to "impose" to the writers on the start of a new series, the questions remains: why can't they take the raw material from ANY planet they come accross? I would imagine that the basic elements needed would be Hidrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxigen, found in the most basic organic compounds. Regarding energy, bear in mind that the energy from the ship DOES NOT come from dilithium. Dilithium is a regulator, or more precisely, a mediator in the Matter/Antimatter reaction. The big key here is finding antimatter. TNG's Tech manual explained that the ship IS capable of creating its own antimatter by means of the fusion reactors on board and by collecting interstellar hidrogen, by means of the Bussard collectors, but because the input is so small (about 900 thousand hidrogen atoms per cubic meter of ISM), and this is an energy intensive process, very little output is created, thus this process is only used in the most dire of emergencies. - Quase 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::::I agree that safety is a major reason for using the transporter room versus via an out-of-room transport. Imagine this crude analogy I will make using food: It is safer to eat food off of a clean plate rather than to eat it off a tabletop. Granted, the food will still nourish you in either case, but there is always the possibility that dirt or other unwanted material will be in it if you eat it straight off the table. The transporter buffers and filters are supposed to be able to remove unwanted material during transport, but still there is always the possibility of something unwanted coming through the transporter matrix. When transport is initiated by bypassing the transporter pad, safety is sacrificed for convenience. -- ViaEsta 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Multiple transporter rooms for USS Defiant As stated in the article, there are two transporter rooms on the class, and in fact this can be seen when closely scrutinizing the appareances of the transporter room in and , both of which much of the transporter room can be made out in. In "Past Tense", the transporter room was very tiny, and was stuck at the end of a corridor, with the transporter chief's console being stuck up against the left-hand wall. (This seems to be the one referred to as "transporter bay" on a few occasions.) In "Call to Arms" however, a larger transporter room was seen, which retained the same transporter pad, but was actually big enough to be called a room in its own right, and had a more traditionally sized and placed console facing the pad from the other side of the room. Since they're quite distinctly different designs, I think it would be nice to show both on this article. I've added the picture to the gallery right after the first Defiant transporter room; however, this has the unfortunate effect of creating a break in the by-date arrangement of the pictures, since it's from 2373, but in order to be arranged next to the other Defiant picture it has to go before a Voyager picture from 2371. Is this OK given the circumstances? -Mdettweiler 17:54, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Update: I've gone through the transcripts of all the DS9 episodes since the Defiant was first introduced, and didn't come up with any dialog to state which transporter room was #1 and which was #2. It seems that sometime partway through Season 4, the transporter set must have been heavily redressed to make the bigger transporter room, as all appearances before that are the small room at the end of a corridor, and after that it's always the full-sized room. Of course, in-universe the logical explanation would be that they're separate transporter rooms, since we already know that the ship has two of them. Does anyone know if either transporter room can be found and identified on an MSD or something like that? If we can place at least one of them to a particular deck, then we can list the appearances of each on the article like we've done for other ships. -Mdettweiler 18:41, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Picture May I upload a picture of a Pre-TOS (The Cage) Transporter room? ScarletScarabX (Talk) 17:02, September 25, 2010 (UTC) Sub-headings for different rooms? Is it necessary to have sub-headings for each of the different rooms within a ship section? It looks a bit messy to me, specifically when under each of those sub-headings is only a line of text saying "transporter room 2 featued in x episode". It would look neater and be easier to navigate on the page if those sub-headings were merged into just one section under the ship heading. I'm happy to make the change but just wanted to post here first for discussion. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:03, February 10, 2018 (UTC) I've gone ahead and made the change. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:25, March 1, 2018 (UTC)